Letter: Angst? No. Obama is careful with good reason

Editor: The title of an article, “Obama frozen in angst as Mideast violence deepens,” on the Aug. 27 editorial page was misleading. Angst is a German word meaning a deep, gloomy feeling and similarly, frozen, used here metaphorically, means you can’t act, just like someone suffering from serious mental depression. However, Mr. Obama’s selected comments cited in the article indicate that is aware of the “damned if you do damned if you don’t” aspect of foreign policy, especially as regards to the Middle East.

This is in contrast to his predecessor who thought that there were simple solutions to the region’s intractable problems; presumably believing therefore that they were not intractable, which was shown to be a simplistic view in the light of subsequent events. The writer, Jules Witcover, seems to be aware, especially in his penultimate paragraph, that Mr. Obama faces very complex problems so he is proceeding; very carefully weighing all the options and possible consequences. So why the misleading title? The final paragraph/sentence is, in contrast, simplistically self-evident. Namely that, “Judgment on his foreign-policy legacy may well rest on which way he goes”. Indeed it will, combined with the essentially unpredictable subsequent events. Mr. Obama is right to be cautious in deciding what is the right decision since, especially for this region, no one can be sure what that should be.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

You'll note that nowhere in the column does Witcover use the word "angst." Some headline writer/editor decided that the substance of his remarks could best be summarized by characterizing Obama's state of mind as such. I have always felt that the reporter/columnist is in the best position to write the headline, whether that be a straight news story, an op-ed, or a letter to the editor, but that's not the way it works. News room and editorial page editors feel compelled to guard this prerogative with their very lives and for reasons I have never pretended to understand.

Obama isn't making any decision based on what is right or wrong. As with every decision he has ever made on his active involvement in issues, he's doing what is best politically for him. He is a career politician, not a leader. Once he publicly pronounced the "red line" in an effort to "look" like a leader, he put himself in a precarious situation politicly. I really think he is so naive and arrogant about world affairs that he thought a mere statement by the chosen messiah would limit the use of biological weapons. But suddenly reality hit him in the face and he is looking for a way out. The way out is to claim he now wants Congress to be included in the decision making, but he never once went to Congress before or immediately after he established the "red line". As a politician able to convince the general public he is the answer to all their problems, he is an expert. But when it comes to having the wisdom to make real decisions as the Commander in Chief or President of the United States, he falls short of even attaining the level of novice.

Hmm,......when it comes to the Syrian "Kobayashi Maru" the definition of right and/or wrong action maybe a relative concept,..... perhaps even amorphous.

He definitely stuck his(our) neck out with the red line but then again nobody has an issue with the Iranian red line.

I am glad he brought Congress in on this one, there could be some serious unintended consequences of launching an attack.

Like or not we are already involved since we have treaties with Syria's neighbors should the conflict overflow their borders.

The "little boy who cried wolf Iraq misadventure" sure isn't making things easier, thing is this time we know this guy has tons and tons of the stuff and active production facilities, so I guess here we go......

Special assessment war tax anybody?

IF North Korea and Iran gassed each other would we intervene? Should we just relocate the good people of Syria and let the Alawites and Al Qaeda chem each other till one of them wins?

I don't think we need to get involved in Syria. I can't see much of a difference between the Crimes against Humanity in Syria vs. the atrocities in Rwanda, where the US was more than happy to avoid involvement.
Now that he stuck his neck out his only choice is to lay the blame on congress. I didn't and don't think he has the moral fiber to launch a war, justified or not, let alone make the decisions a commander-in-Chief must make.
Now he has painted himself into a corner, by committing himself to armed intervention, loosing our main and most stalwart ally (Britain), gaining a difficult ally (France), and now pinning his actions to the whims of a deeply divided and partisan Congress. He'll be criticized as a wimp if he doesn't act. He'll be pilloried as an unjust warmonger if he does and he whole thing goes south, as it well could.
But if it all falls apart he can blame Bush and all the racists whole failed to support him.